Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	aforesaid_a	hold_v	tenement_n	1,735	5	10.9643	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47716	The second part of Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster in the time of the late Q. Elizabeth, from the XVIIIth to the XXXIIId year of her reign collected by that learned professor of the law, William Leonard ... ; with alphabetical tables of the names of the cases and of the matters contained in the book.; Reports and cases of law argued and adjudged in the courts at Westminster. Part 2	Leonard, William.	1687 (1687)	Wing L1105; ESTC R19612	303,434	242

ratione calumniae praedict ac praedict jurament tenebat proficua inde provenientia diutius quam aliter si praesens Triatio habita fuisset sine aliqua calumnia tenere potuisset See the Statute of 5 Eliz. against Perjury the words are grieved letted or molested c. LIV. George ap Rice 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench George ap Rice Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct assigned his Estate to one A. against whom he in the Reversion brought a Quid juris clamat and it was adjudged that he should Attorn for although Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue extinct himself is not compellable to attorn yet his Assignee shall attorn for the privilege is knit to the person who is in truth Tenant in Tail after possibility of Issue which cannot be the Assignee for by the Assignment the privity and the privilege are destroyed 1 Len. 290.291 And where the Defendant in a Quid juris clamat is adjudged to attorn Distress infinite shall issue forth against him to compell him to attorn and if he when he appears doth refuse to attorn he shall be imprisoned until he doth attorn And this Iudgment That the Assignee of Tenant in Tail after possibility should attorn being given in a Court in Wales was afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error brought upon it in the King 's Bench. LV. Lucas and Picrost 's Case 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case was 3 Len. 137. That an Assise of Novel disseisin was brought in the County of Northumberland of two Acres of Land and as to one Acre the Defendant pleaded a Plea tryable in a Foreign County upon which the Issue was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the Foreign County where by Nisi prius it was found for the Plaintiff And now Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book of 16 H. 7. 12. where Assise is adjourned in Bank for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But the whole Court is of contrary Opinion for here is another Acre the Title of which is to be tryed before the Iustices of the Assise before the Tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre for which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of the Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like unto the Case of 6 Ass 4. 8 Ass 15. where in an Assise a Release dated in a Foreign County is pleaded which was denyed for which cause the Assise was adjourned in Bank and there found by Inquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff now the Plaintiff if he will release his damages shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case Postea 199. 14 H. 7. part 118. parcel of the Lands put in view doth remain not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may the damages And therefore the Court awarded That the Verdict should be sent back to the Iustices of the Assise LVI Povye 's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In communi Banco POvy an Attorny of the King's Bench brought an Action of Trespass there against the Warden of the Fleet who came into the Common Pleas and demanded the Advice of the Court because he is an Officer of this Court and therefore ought not to be impleaded elsewhere But it was said by the Court 3 Cro. 180. That because that the Plaintiff hath also his Privilege in the King's Bench as well as the Defendant hath here this equality of Privilege shall render the parties at liberty and he shall have the benefit of the Privilege who first begins Suit and so the Warden of the Fleet was advised to answer LVII Inchley and Robinson 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione Firmae it was found by special Verdict Owen Rep. 88. 3 Len. 165 That King E. 6. was seised of the Manor and hundred of Fremmington and by his Letters Patents granted the same to Barnard in Fee rendering 130 l. per annum and also to hold by Homage and Fealty and afterwards Queen Mary reciting the said Grant by E. 6. and the Reservation upon it granted to Gartrude Marchioness of Exeter the Manor of Fremmington and the said Rents and Services and also the Manor of Camfield and other Lands and tenements to be holden by the twentieth part of a Knight's Fee Gertrude so seised devised to the Lord Montjoy the Manor of Fremmington the Manor of Camfield c. and also bequeathed divers sums of money to be levied of the premisses and they farther found That the said Rent of 230 l. was the full third part of the yearly value of all the Lands and Tenements of the Devisor The Question was If by those words of the Devise Of the Manor of Fremmington the Rent and Services of the Manor did pass i. the Rent and the Homage and the Fealty reserved the Grant of King E. 6. of the Manor and Hundred of Fremmington and if the said Rent and Services are issuing out of the Manor for if the Rent doth not pass then the same is descended to the Heir of the Marchioness and then being found the full and third part of the value the King and the Heir is fully answered and satisfied and then the Inheritance of the residue discharged and settled in the Devisee And if the Rent doth not pass then is the Heir of the Marchioness entitled by the Statute to a third part of the whole Shuttleworth Serjeant If the Marquess had devised by express words the said Rent and Services they could not have passed for as to the Services they are entire things as Homage and Fealty and they cannot pass by Devise in case where Partition is to follow for such things cannot receive any Partition or Division therefore they are not divisible for the Statute doth enable the Proprietor or Owner to devise two parts of his Inheritances in three parts to be divided i. as Catalla Felonum cannot be devised for the reason aforesaid which was granted by the whole Court. And as to the Devise he argued much upon the grounds of Devises and put a ground put by Fineax 15 H. 7. 12. where every Will ought to be construed and taken according as the words do import or as it may be intended or implyed by the words what the meaning of the Testator was out of the words of the Will. See thereof a good Case 19 H. 8. 8. and 9. and he relied much upon the Case of Bret and Rigden Plow 342. So he said in this case because the intent of the Devisor doth not appear upon the words of the Will that this Rent should pass it shall not pass for there is not any mention made of any Rent in all the Will. Fenner contrary and he argued much upon the favorable construction which the Law gives to Wills 14 H. 3. Reversion for Remainder

Scire facias shall issue forth against the Sureties and thereupon a Capias And this question If the Capias in this case lieth or not is to be decided either by Audita Querela in the Chancery or by Error in the King's Bench for the said Courts have authority to affirm the proceedings or to disaffirm them And here the Question was If Woodhouse were imprisoned or no and not if the Capias erronice emanavit or not And he took a difference where Process is awarded out of a Court which hath not authority of the Principal cause there it is coram non judice and the Process is void and if the Sheriff taketh the party by force of such Process it is meerly void and he a Trespassor but contrary if the Court hath authority of the principal cause there if the Process be misconceived it is onely erroneous 10 Co. 76. An unskilfull man in Chancery makes an Appeal of Murther retornable in the Common Pleas and there an unskilfull Clark makes a Capias upon it the same is coram non-judice and not all together void But if in a Writ of Entry in the nature of an Assise the Demandant hath Iudgment to recover Debt and Damages and thereupon issueth a Capias the same is not void for it is but a misawarding of the Process provide emanavit If out of the Common Pleas immediately a Writ issueth to the Sheriff of Chester which is a County Palatine where the King 's Writ doth not run the same is void and false imprisonment lieth upon such a taking A Formedon brought in the King's Bench and upon that a Capias is void coram non judice and the Sheriff is bound to take notice of the Law in such cases that those of the King's Bench have not authority to hold plea in real Actions As to that That Woodhouse was convict of Felony the same shall not avoid the Execution but I grant that the King shall be satisfied before the subject c. And he relied much upon the said Case cited before 13 E. 3. Bar. 253. as to the matter of the Capias 19 H. 9. In Escape the Defendant pleaded a Release of him who recovered to the Prisoner being in Execution and it was holden no Plea. And in the principal Case Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXIII Bridget Clark 's Case Antea 30 31. Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer THE Case was Clark was indebted to Archdel by Obligation and afterwards delivered to Andrews certain Hogsheads of Wine to satisfie the said Archdel the said Debt and afterwards the Obligation of Clark is assigned to the Queen for the Debt of Archdel And if the property of the said Hogsheads of Wine were altered by the delivery of them to Andrews before the Assignment was the Question Egerton Solicitor The property is not altered for the Bailor might have an Action of Account against Andrews before that he hath delivered the same over according to the Bailment but if he hath delivered them over the same is a good bar in an Account But if one be accountable to me upon a Bailment and afterwards I do require him to deliver the Goods over to A. the same is not in bar of Account but is good in discharge of account before Auditors for the same is matter after the Bailment not upon the Bailment If Goods be bailed to bail over upon a consideration precedent of his part to whom they ought to be bailed the Bailor cannot countermand it otherwise it is where it is voluntary and without consideration but where it is in consideration of a Debt not countermandable contrary if it be to satisfie the Debt of another Manwood Where the Debtor of the King is sufficient there a Debt due to him ought not to be assigned to the King but onely where the Debt of the King is doubtfull and that was the ancient course but now at this day multi videntur habentur divites qui tamen non sunt and therefore omnis Ratio tentanda est for the Recovery of the King's Debts But as to the Case before us The Wife is Executrix to her Husband who was indebted to Archdel and she delivers the Goods to Andrews to satisfie Archdel and all that is before the Assignment And I am of Opinion That the property of the said Goods is altered for as the case is Andrews was Surety for Clark and hath a Counter-Bond of Clark to save him harmless If I borrow 100 l. and deliver unto the Lender Plate for the security of it the property general of it is in me yet the Bailee hath a special interest in it untill he be paid If Goods be delivered to A. to pay unto B. A. may sell them An Executor hath Goods of the Testators and he with his own Monies payeth the Debts of the Testator he shall retain the Goods and the property is altered And here in our case Andrews may by virtue of this Bailment sell the Goods and with the Monies arising thereof pay the said Archdel And afterwards Iudgment was given accordingly that the property of the Goods by the delivery over by Andrews was altered CXIV Foskew 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer FRancis Foskew seised of the Manor of Foskew in his Demesn as of fee in consideration of a Marriage to be had with Francis his Son with M. Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston 9 Feb. 25. Feb. covenanted to levy a Fine of the Manor aforesaid and that the said Fine should be to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and after their deaths to the use of the said Erancis their Son and M. and the Heirs of their bodies begotten with remainders over The Fine was levied accordingly afterwards 19 Octob. 27 Eliz. Francis the Father acknowledged a Recognizance to the Queen and died his Wife died and now this Manor is extended for the Debt to the Queen by force of the Statute of 33 H. 8. And now Coke came into Court and prayed that the said Manor might be discharged of the Debt to the Queen because it is not chargeable by the said Statute the words of whicih Statute are All Manors Lands Tenements c. which hereafter shall descend remain or revert in Fee-simple tail general or special by from or after the death of any his or their Ancestor or Ancestors as Heir or by Gift of his Ancestor whose Heir he is which said Ancestor or Ancestors was is or shall be indebted to the King or any other person or persons to his use by Judgment Recognizance Obligation c. In every such case the said Manors c. shall be charged c. This Statute was made for the benefit of the King in two points 1. To make Lands entailed liable to the King against the issue tail for the Kings Debts in the cases aforesaid where they were not liable 2. To make Bonds taken by the Officers of the King to the use of the King as

of it is taken away by the act of the Plaintiff himself CLIV. Heal 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench HEal a Bencher of the Inner Temple being at the Bar Wiat another Apprentice at Law informed the Court against the said Heal and shewed That where his Client had obtained a Iudgment in the King's-Bench The said Heal being of Council with the other part did advise his Client to bring the party who had obtained the Iudgment into the Chancery and he procured an Order against him Co. 3 Inst 12. 123 124. 4 Inst 86 91. by which he was cast into Prison Which matter Heal could not excuse but submitted himself to the Court saying That he had seen a precedent which induced him so to doe and that was the Case of one Prince Princes Case where a Iudgment given in this Court was drawn into question and examined in the Chancery But the Iustices said That the same was an ill precedent and against the Statute of 4 H. 4. which is That no Iudgment be undone but by Error or Attaint CLV Gray and Constable 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench SIR Thomas Gray covenanted with the Lady Constable That where he is possessed of a Lease for twenty one years of certain Lands That he will assure convey and assign the said Lease to one Nevil excepting the two last years of the said twenty one years and he said Sir Tho. Gray was bound in a Bond to perform the Covenants of the said Indenture upon which Indenture the Lady brought Debt against the said Sir Tho. Gray who pleaded the Conditions and the performance of them The Plaintiff replicando said That the Defendant non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over the said Lease upon which they were at issue And at the day of the Nisi Prius it was moved by Cooper and Beaumont That the Issue was misjoined for the Defendant pleads as the Covenant it self is That he had assured conveyed and assigned the Lease and so pleaded the performance of other Covenants c. The Plaintiff assigned the breach in this Quod non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over which word transposuit is not in the Covenant nor in the pleading of the performance thereof and the English word set over although it sounds the same with assigning doth not help the matter and if the Latin word doth not agree with the matter non refert of the English word although in the Plea there be this word Anglice set over Note the Covenant was ut supra The Plaintiff assigned the breach Quod non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over c. And the Defendant pleaded Quod assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over c. And the Court was clear of opinion That the Issue for that cause was not well joined And afterwards by the assent of the parties it was amended CLVI Doghead 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Hutt 35. Hob. 250. Antea 110. 1 Cro. 177. And. 116. AN Information was upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 4. by the party grieved which Statute gives unto the King one moyety of the value and the other moyety to the party grieved The Plaintiff was nonsuit It was holden by the Court that he shall not pay costs and damages by the Statute of 18 Eliz. for the Statute as the Title of the same doth imply is to redress Disorders in common Informers and so is the Preamble and the words also of the clause of costs and damages are Every such Informer and so by Ive Secondary of the Crown-Office An Action given to the party grieved is not a popular Action and the Statute of 18 Eliz. extends onely to popular Actions CLVII Cony and Chomley 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae after Verdict in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That the Plaintiff had declared in Ejectione Firmae Quod cum Robertus Diggon per Indenturam suam gerent dat 20 Maii 1 Cro. 773. 890. dimisit c. where he ought to have said iisdem die anno For although the Indenture bear date ut supra yet it may be that it was delivered at another day and then it doth begin to be a Demise And if in an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit to pay money upon request although it be found for the Plaintiff yet if no day be put in the Declaration when the request was made but onely licet saepius requisitus in case where a request ought to be made there the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment as it hath been oftentimes adjudged Quod omnes Justiciarii concesserunt But yet afterwards notwithstanding the Objection aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLVIII Marsh and Jones 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin the Case upon the Evidence was 3 Len. 114. That before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man made a Feoffment in Fee to hold of him by the service solvendi post quamlibet vacationem sive alienationem the value of the annual profits of the Lands And it was holden by the Court That the value shall be intended such a value as was the value at the time of the Feoffment made and not as it is improved by succession of time CLIX. Willoughby 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench WIlliam Willoughby and two other were indicted 1 Cro. 3 Len. 216. That whereas the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessours have used to have Common in such a place the said Willoughby c. vi armis c. had inclosed it and the Inclosure was upon their own Lands It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to be indicted but the party grieved is put to his Action as where a Presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Morden Morden's Case 1 Cro. Madox Case 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a Way upon his own Land And it was said That if it should be upon the Lands of another it were not material for it is but a hindrance from the taking of Common which cannot be vi armis Also it was said That the Indictment is recorded and certified as found before the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery and they cannot take such Presentments And although the said Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of the Peace yet the Indictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of the Peace will not help it for the Court shall not respect any other authority but that which appeareth upon Record and therefore for the causes aforesaid they were discharged by the Court. CLX Collet and Robston 's Case Error Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 149. COllet and Andrews recovered in a

upon the Statute of 5 R. 2. against J. and E. J. died pendant the Writ and E. pleaded in Bar and the Plaintiff did reply and conclude and so was he seised untill the said E. Simul cum dicto J. named in the Writ entred upon the Plaintiff c. But the opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary for here in the case at Bar Drake by his several issue which he hath joyned with the Plaintiff upon Not guilty is severed from the other five Defendants and then when they plead in Bar The Plaintiff ought to reply to them without meddling with Drake who upon his several Plea and issue joyned upon it is a stranger to them as if the said five had been the onely Defendants But if he had not replyed to Drake as if Drake had made default or had died after the Writ brought as in the case before cited of 28 E. 4. there he ought to have replyed as it is objected So in an Ejectione firmae of twenty acres The Defendant as to ten acres pleads Not guilty upon which they are at issue and the Plaintiff replies and says as to the other ten acres and so was he possessed untill by the Defendant of the said ten acres he was ejected this is good without speaking of the other ten acres upon which the general issue is joyned And the Court was ready to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff but they looked upon the Record and seeing that one issue in this Action was to be tryed between the Plaintiff and the said Drake And although the Plaintiff offered to release his damages and the issue joyned and to have Iudgment against the five Defendants who had demurred Vid. antea 41. yet the Court was clear of opinion that no Iudgment should be given upon the said Demurrer untill the said issue was tryed for the Action is an Ejectione firmae in which Case the possession of the land is to be recovered and it may be for any thing that appeareth That Drake who hath pleaded the general issue hath Title to the land c. But if this Action had been an Action of Trespass there in such case Ut supra upon release of damages and the issue joyned the Plaintiff should have Iudgment presently CCLI French 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IT was presented before the Coroner That John French was Felo de se and that certain goods of the said John French were in the possession of J. S. and this presentment was certified into the King's Bench upon which Process issued forth against the said J. S. and continued untill he was Outlawed And now came J. S. and cast in his Writ of Error to reverse the said Outlawry and assigned for Error because that in the presentment upon which he was Outlawed there is not any addition given to the said J. S. And at the first it was doubted If upon that presentment Process of Outlawry did lye and Ive one of the chief Clerks of the Crown-Office said to the Court That such Process in such case did lye and that he could shew five hundred precedents to that purpose Another matter was moved upon the Statute of 1 H. 5. 5. of Additions If this Outlawry by the Statute aforesaid ought to be reversed by default of Addition for as much as the said Statute speaks onely of Outlawries upon original Writs in personal Actions Appeals and Indictments But it was agreed by the whole Court That as to this purpose the presentment should be accounted in Law as an Indictment and afterwards the Outlawry against French was reversed CCLII Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Lease for thirty years was made by Husband and Wife if they so long should live and if they die c. That the land should remain to A. their son during the term aforesaid And it was holden by Wray Iustice That if the Husband and Wife do die within the term that the son should have the land De novo for thirty years But Gawdy was of opinion that he shall have it for so many years which after their death should be expired CCLIII Cooper 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectionefirmae The Case was That the Husband and Wife had right to enter into certain lands in the right of the wife and a Deed of Lease for years is written in the name of the Husband and Wife to one A. for to try the Title and also a Letter of Attorney to B. to enter into the land and to deliver the said Deed of Lease to the said A. in the name of the Husband and Wife 3 Cro. 118. 2 Cro. 617. Yel and as well the Letter of Attorney as the said Deed of Lease are sealed by the said Husband and Wife with their seals and entry and delivery is made accordingly the said A. enters and upon Ejectment brings an Ejectione firmae and the whole matter aforesaid was found by special Verdict and the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover for the special matter found by Verdict i. e. the Deed of Lease and the Letter of Attorney do maintain the Declaration well enough and here is a Lease made by Husband and Wife according to that the Plaintiff hath declared CCLIV Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Trespass for breaking of the Plaintiff's Close Owen 114. 1 Cro. 876. 2 Cro. 195. 229. Godb. 123. and killing of eighteen Conies there the Defendant as to all the Trespass but to the killing of the Conies pleaded Not guilty and as to the killing of the said Conies He said that the place Where is a Heath in which he hath common of pasture and that he found the Conies eating the grass there and he killed them and carried them away as it was lawfull for him to do Cowper Although Conies be Ferae naturae yet when they are in in-grounds they are reduced to such a property that if they be killed or carried away I shall have an Action of trespass Vid. 43 E. 3. 24. And if a Deer be hunted by the Plaintiff in a Forest and afterwards in hunting it be driven out of the Forest and the Forrester doth follow the chase and the Plaintiff kill the Deer in his own grounds yet the Forrester may enter into the land of the Plaintiff and re-take the Deer 12 H. 8. 9. And although the Defendant hath common in the soil yet he cannot meddle with the wood there nor with the land nor with the grass otherwise than with the feeding of his cattel for he hath but a faint interest And if he who hath the Freehold in the land bringeth an Action of trespass against such a commoner for entring into his land and the Defendant plead Not guilty he cannot give in evidence that he hath common there And it hath been late adjudged That where commoners prescribe Godb. 123. That the Lord hath used to put in

he said Misnosmer shall be tried where the Writ is brought c. So Ne unque administer as Executor c. Manwood Here the Lease is said to be made at Durham in a place certain if now there be not any other local thing said which might draw the trial elsewhere it shall be tried at Durham where the Lease is made An Infant makes a lease for years rendring Rent and afterwards re-enters and avoids his Lease by reason of his nonage and Title is made against him by the Lease upon which he pretended nonage it shall be tried where the Lease was made and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff XXIX Ross and Morrice 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench EDward Ross was Plaintiff in a Replevin against Edward Morrice 1 Cro. 108 109. and George Manly Defendants who made Conusance as Bailiffs to Jerom Weston The Plaintiff declares of the taking of two Geldings 20 Decemb. 29 Eliz. at Nayland in the County of Suffolk in a certain place called Nayland-Court-Meadow And the Conusance is that the place where was a Freehold of the said Jer. Weston c. The Plaintiff in bar of the Conusance shewed That long time before Sir Christopher Danby was seised of 30 acres of Meadow in Nayland whereof the place where c. and Leased the same by Indenture to Thomas Calton 19 Maii 31 H. 8. Habendum from the Feast of the Annunciation 1553. for the term of 45 years Who 1 E. 6. assigned his Interest to Edw. Ross the Plaintiff's Father who 1 Maii the said 1553. entred and 11 Eliz. granted his Interest to Bamford and Mascal who entred and were possessed Sir Christopher Danby died seised of the Reversion 13 Eliz. and the same descended to Thomas Danby his son and heir 14 Eliz. Mascal died Bamford 15 Eliz. granted to the Plaintiff Habendum from the 17 of March 1583. for three years which expired 26 Eliz. Bamford entred and afterwards Thomas Danby granted the Reversion to Edw. Rockwood in Fee to which the said Bamford Attorned and the Plaintiff by force of the said Lease put in his Cattel c. The Plaintiff Replicando said That long time before that Danby had any thing Jeofry Lord Scroop had issue of his body Henry Lord Scroop and died And that one John Guntwarby was seised of the said Manor of Nayland whereof c. in Fee by his Charter 25 E. 3. gave to the said Henry Lord Scroop the same Et haeredibus corpore suo exeuntibus who had issue Stephen who entred and died seised having issue John who entred and died seised having issue Thomas who entred and 3 H. 7. suffered a Common Recovery to the use of himself and his heirs The Recoverers enfeoffed Thomas seised also of many other Lands and had issue Ralph Jeofry Alice Elizabeth and Margery and afterwards died seised Ralph Lord Scroop entred and thereof did enfeoff divers persons unto the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and the heirs males of the said Ralph and afterwards the said Ralph being possessed of the said Charter of entail made ut supra by Guntwardy 7 H. 8. Devised that the Feoffees should be seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of himself and Eleanor his wife for their lives and if they died without issue of the body of the said Ralph the said Jeofry then living that then the Feoffees should be seised to the use of the said Jeofry being his Vncle for his life and after his decease ad usum Rectorum haeredum in perpetuum secundum antiquam Evidentiam inde ante factam with an averment that the said Ralph at the time of the said Devise and of his death was possessed of the Charter of Entail made by the said Guntwardy and that the said Charter was the most ancient Evidence of the said concerning the said Manor Ralph died without issue possessed of the said Charter by which the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to his use for life and after to the use of the said Jeofry for life and after his decease of the right heirs of the body of Henry Lord Scroop lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and the said Charter and of the residue of the Manors to the use of the said Jeofry and his heirs Eleanor died after whose decease the Feoffees were seised of the said Manor of Nayland to the use of the said Jeofry right heir of the said Henry Lord Scroop of his body begotten and of the other lands to the use of the said Jeofry in Fee Jeofry died without issue by which the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery Cosins and heirs of the body of the said Henry Scroop c. And of the heirs of the bodies of the said Alice Elizabeth and Margery lawfully begotten by reason of the said Devise and Charter as to the said Manor of Nayland and of the other Manors to their use in Fee And afterwards the said Alice took to husband James Strangways who had issue Thomas Elizabeth took to husband Fitz Randolph who had issue Elizabeth Dorothy Agnes Alice Margery took to husband Danby who had issue Sir Christopher Danby named in the Bar and afterwards all the said husbands and their wives died by force of which the said Feoffees were seised of one part of the said Manor of Nayland in three parts to be divided to the use of the said Thomas Strangways and of another part to the use of the four daughters of the said Elizabeth and her husband Fitz Randolph and of another such part to the use of the said Christopher Danby and of their heirs in Tail and of the other lands to the use of them in Fee in degree of Coparcinary Elizabeth the eldest daughter of Fitz Randolph took to husband Shirley Dorothy her sister took to husband Eshe Agnes took to husband Maynel and Alice took to husband Dranfield Thomas Strangways had issue James and died And afterwards partition was made by which to James Strangways were allotted lands in Kent and agreed that the Feoffees should be seised of the said lands to the use of the said James and his heirs and to no other use To Sherley and Elizabeth his wife lands in Essex were allotted and agreed upon the partition that the Feoffees should be seised to the use of them c. in Fee c. And to Danby the said Manor of Nayland in tail by reason of the Devise and Charter aforesaid as to the said Manor of Nayland and of other lands in Fee. And afterwards 23 E. 8. notice was given to the Feoffees of the said partition and averred that the partition was equal c. and that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the said partition untill 27 H. 8. and confessed the Lease made by Danby to Calton and all the assignments set forth in the Bar to the Avowry and farther shewed That Thomas Danby

15 E. 4. 29. And he agreed the Case That if the Lord doth improve part of the common that he shall not have common in the residue of the Land for the Lands improved because That he cannot prescribe for that which is improved as the Book is in 5 Ass But here in the principal Case he doth not prescribe in any person certain or in or for any new thing but he sets forth that the use of the Town hath always been that the inhabitants should have common there And this common is not common appendent or appertinent but common in gross See Needham 37 H. 6. 34. b. And he said That if the house of a Freeholder which hath used to have such common doth fall down and he erecteth a new house in another place of the Land that he shall have common to that new erected house as he had before And he took a difference betwixt the case of Estovers where a new Chimney is erected and this Case and he stood much upon the manner of the prescription Gawdy Serjeant contrary And he took exception to the prescription For he said that it is said therein That it is Antiqua Villa but he doth not say that it hath been so time out of mind c. and so it ought to be said as the Book is in 15 E. 4. 29. a. And then if it be not an ancient Town time out of mind the parties cannot prescribe as Inhabitants of the said Town to have common time out of mind c. And he said That if such a prescription as is said in this Case be good in Law viz. That every one who erected a new house within the said Town should have common to his said new house the same should be prejudicial to the ancient Town and to the utter overthrow and manifest impairing of the common there and it might so happen that one who had but little Lands in the said Town might erect twenty new houses there and so an infinite number of houses might be newly erected there and there should be common allowed to every Inhabitant within the said new erected houses which should be inconvenient and unreasonable Anderson chief Iustice He who erects a new house cannot prescribe in the common for then a prescription might begin at this day which cannot be and he insisted much upon the general loss which should happen to the ancient Tenants if such a prescription for new erections should be good Periam If it should be Law That he should have common in this Case That all the benefit which the Statute gives to the Lord for improvement should be taken away by such new edifications and erection of new houses which were not reasonable And such was the opinion of the other Iustices and therefore they all agreed that in the principal Case the Plaintiff should not have common to this new erected house but the entry of the Iudgment was respited untill the Court had seen the Record and after they had seen and considered upon the Record Anderson and Periam were of opinion as before But Windham did not encline to the contrary but they all agreed That he who set up again a new Chimney where an old one was before should have Estovers to the said new Chimney and so if he build a new house upon the foundation of an old house That he should have common to his said house new erected So if a house falleth down and the Tenant or Inhabitant sets up a new house in the same place Also if a man hath a Mill and a Water-course to it time out of mind which he hath used time out of mind to cleanse if the Mill falleth and he erecteth a new Mill there he shall have the Watercourse and liberty to cleanse it as it had before and afterwards the same Term Iudgment was given for the Defendant to which Windham Iustice agreed LIX Rous and Artois Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was large but the points in this Case were but two Owen Rep. 27. 4 Co. 24. The first was If Tenant per auter vye after the death of Cestuy que vye holdeth over If he be a Disseisor or not The second point was If Tenant at will or at sufferance be such a Tenant of the Manor as he may grant Copyhold Estates to Copyholders For the first point It was agreed by Godfrey and he held that the principal Case was That if Tenant pur auter vye holdeth over the life of Cestuy que vye that he thereby gaineth the Fee But he granted the Cases That where a man holdeth at the will of another that after the Estate determined if he holdeth over he hath not thereby gained fee for he is Tenant at sufferance and as Littleton saith in his Chapter of Releases 108. Tenant at sufferance is where a man of his own head occupieth the Lands and Tenements at the will of him who hath the Freehold and such an occupier claims nothing but at will But he said That in the principal Case he otherwise claimed than at the will of the Lessor for that it appeareth that he hath granted Copy and he said that this difference doth give answer to the Case which is t. H. 8. br t. per Copy 18. where it is said for Law That none is Tenant at sufferance but he who first enters by authority of Law As if a man makes a Lease for years or for the life of another and he holdeth the Lands after his term expired or after the death of Cestuy que vye If he claim nothing but at the will of him who hath the Freehold he is a Tenant at sufferance But if he holdeth in the Lands against the will of his Lessor then he is a Disseisor and so if he do act after such continuance of possession contrary to the will of his Lessor he is a Disseisor 10 E. 4. If an Infant maketh a Lease at will and the Lessor dieth and the Lessee continueth in possession and claims Fee the Heir shall have Mortdancester 18 E. 4. If Cestuy que vye dieth and the Tenant hold in and was impleaded The Lessor shall not be received and he conceived the reason of the Case to be because that the reversion was not in him but that the Fee was gained and rested in the other 22 E. 4. 39. g. by Hussey If a Termor holdeth over his term there an Estate in Fee is confessed to be in him because he holdeth the possession of the Lands by wrong but there is a Quaere made of it if he be a Disseisor or not but I conceive that he is for Trespass doth not lie against him before the Lessor hath made his entry and therefore if the Lessee doth continue in the possession of the Lands by reason of the first entry that is the reason as I conceive that the Writ of Entre ad terminum qui praeteriit lieth against such a Termor who holds so over his Term and

adjudged by the whole Court that the Covenant did not lie by one of them onely but ought to be brought by them both LXI Carter 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Being seised of the Manor of Staple in Odiham 1 Cro. 208. Owen Rep. 84. 8 Co. 119. and of divers other Lands in Odiham suffered a common Recovery of the whole and by Indenture expressed the uses in this manner viz. of all his Lands and Tenements in Odiham to the use of his wife for life the remainder over c. And of the Manor of Staple to the use of his youngest son in tail but by the clear opinion of the whole Court although the Manor of Staple was in Odiham yet the wife shall have nothing therein for the intent of the party was that the son should have the same and his wife the residue and accordingly Iudgment was given LXII Cobb and Prior 's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THE Case betwixt Cobb and Prior was this A man seised of Lands in Fee devised the same to his Wife during the minority of his Son upon condition that she should not do Waste during the minority of the said Son and died The Wife married a Husband and died the Husband committed Waste It was holden by all the Iustices That the same was not any breach of the Condition and Iudgment was entred accordingly LXIII Taylor and Brounsal 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. in the Common Pleas. IN an Information upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. by Taylor against Brounsal the Case was That John Brounsal was seised and gave the Lands to T. B. and the Heirs of his body c. the Remainder to R. B. and the Heirs male of his body the Remainder to the right Heirs of J. B. T. B. died having issue a Daughter and R. B. made a Lease for years of the Lands And it was holden by the Court to be no maintenance within the said Statute for he in the Remainder might make a Lease for years Then it was given in Evidence That a common Recovery was had against the Husband and Wife with a single Voucher and so the Remainder limited to R. B. destroyed and that after that Recovery R. B. made the Lease To which it was said by the other side That the said Recovery was never executed and no discontinuance of the Remainder and then the Lease made by R. B. was good and the truth of the Case was That such a Recovery was had and an Habere facias seisinam awarded and retorned but no Execution was in truth had upon it nor the Recoveror never entred And if R. B. who is a stranger to the said Recovery shall be admitted against the Recovery to say That no Execution was thereof was the Question and therefore all the matter was found by special Verdict It was also given in Evidence That the Land was given to T. B. and the Heirs males of his body and then when the Daughter which is not in truth inheritable entereth if that Entry she being privy in bloud to R. hee Vncle shall be a Disseisin or Abatement c. as in the Case of Littleton where the youngest Brother entreth after the death of the Father for in such case the youngest Son doth not get any Freehold but is but a Tenant at sufferance Anderson When the Daughter enters and takes a Husband who leaseth for years and the Lessee entreth the same is a Disseisin Periam doubted it for he said When the younger Son entred the Freehold was in him which Anderson doubted LXIV Maunsel and Vernon 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IQ Debt by Maunsel against Hen. Vernon Esquire who came in by Capias i. compulsary Process and pleaded That he was Hen. Vernon Lord Powis and so a Baron of the Parliament and demanded Iudgment of the Writ Note some said That if the Defendant had come in by Issue joyned or gratis and not by compulsary Process he could not have pleaded this Plea or any other Misnosmer The Plaintiff replyed That the Defendant is an Esquire absque hoc that he is Lord Powis and a Baron of the Parliament and as the Iury was ready at the Bar to try this Issue this matter was objected And Anderson conceived That this Plea to the Writ was not good for the name of Lord is not any degree as Knight Duke Earl nor is it parcel of the name nor parcel of addition and therefore it is no Plea in abatement of a Writ and all the Writs of Parliament directed to Barons to summon them to Parliament shall have their Names Sirnames and Additions as if they be Knights Knights and if Esquires they shall be named Esquires and if a Bond be made by J.S. Lord R. the Writ shall not be so for the King by his Writ doth not name any one Lord but otherwise it is of Duke Earl c. for these are Offices of Dignity and parcel of their Names and not onely Additions Windham and Periam contrary and they conceived that there was no difference in this point betwixt a Lord and an Earl for which cause the Court being in doubt although that the Exception was entered of Record would have saved the same to the party and taken the Iury de bene esse but afterwards because it appeared it was joyned in the prejudice of Sir Edward Herbert who was a stranger thereunto and whose Title was concerned therein and there was none on his part to inform the Iury the Iury was at last dismissed by the Court. LXV Penruddock and Newman 's Case Trin. 28 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae by Penruddock against Newman 1 Leon. 279 the Plaintiff declared of a Lease made by the Lord Morley and upon Not-guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That W. Lord Mounteagle seised of the manner of D. whereof c. became bound in a Statute in such a sum of Money to A. who died the Executors of A. sued Execution against the said Lord scil Extendi facias a Liberate issued upon which the said Manor was delivered to the Executors but the said Liberate was not retorned and it was farther found That the Executors being so possessed of the Manor the Lord commanded a Court Baron to be holden there which was done by sufferance and permission of the Executors and in their presence at which time the Executors said to the Lord the Conusor We have nothing to do with this Manor And upon this Verdict several matters were moved 1. If the Execution were well done because the Writ of Liberate was not retorned and as to that divers Books were cited 21 H. 6. 8. 18 E. 3. 25. And there is a difference betwixt a Liberate and a Capias ad satisfaciend and Fieri facias these Writs are Conditional Ita quod habeas corpus c. Ita quod habeas denarios hic in Curia 32 H. 8. ca. 28. 16 H. 7.

Disseisor the Disseisee entereth in the life of Tenant in tail who afterwards dieth the warranty works nothing for the cause aforesaid And also he put this Case Tenant in tail of Land grants a Rent-charge in Fee and an Ancestor collateral releaseth to the Grantee with warranty and dieth the Tenant in tail dieth now the issue is bound but if Tenant in tail dieth before him who maketh the Release now the Rent is determined by the death of Tenant in tail and then the warranty cannot attach upon it At another day the Case was moved and conceived in these words scil Tenant for life the Remainder in tail Tenant for life leaseth for years a Recovery is had against him in the Remainder in tail living Tenant for life the Recoverors enter and oust the Lessee for years the Son and Heir of him in the Remainder in tail releaseth with warranty to him to whom the Recoverors have assured the Lands the Lessee enters he against whom the Recovery was had dieth the Releasor dieth c. It was holden that the Entry of the Lessee before that the warranty had attached upon the possession which passed had avoided the warranty And the Lord Anderson conceived That the Recovery should not prejudice the issue in tail but that the issue shall Fauxifie the same And if Tenant in tail be disseised and so disseised suffereth a common Recovery his issue shall not be barred quod fuit concessum per omnes And afterwards another matter was moved scil That the Release is pleaded to be made to Lincoln College by the name of Custodi sociis Scholaribus Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia where the true name of the College as is confessed by the Record in the Plea pleaded is Custos sive Rector Socii Scholares Lincolniensis Collegii in Oxonia c. It was adjourned See this Case reported 3 part Lincoln College Case LXXXIII Hall and the Bishop of Bath 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HAll brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Bath and others The Incumbent pleaded Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat c. nisi de praesentatione Georgii Sidenham militis not named in the Writ and demanded Iudgment of the Writ upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was argued by Drew Serjeant for the Plaintiff That the Writ was well brought without naming the Patron for if a Quare Impedit be brought against the Patron and Incumbent and the Patron dieth 1 Leon. 45. pendant the Writ the Writ shall not abate 9 H. 6. 30. It might be that the Plaintiff did not know nor could tell who presented the said Incumbent but he findeth the Incumbent a Disturber by his Incumbency and if of necessity such Patron ought to be named then if such a Vsurper should die before the Writ brought he which hath cause of Action should be remediless And by Anderson and Periam the Writ is good enough for the reason aforesaid And Anderson put this case If A. wrongfully by Vsurpation doth present and his Clark is received and afterwards A. having gained the Patronage grants it over to B. Against whom shall the Quare Impedit be brought Walmsley Against B. which Anderson doubted LXXXIV Hughe 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Formedon the Writ was That A. Dedit Aliciae filiae suae and to J.S. and to the Heirs of their two bodies begotten and it was shewed in abatement of the Writ That the name of the Wife is put before the name of the Husband To which it was said by the Court that if such a Writ be brought against the Husband and Wife and the name of the Wife be put before the name of the Husband the Writ shall abate and if in the Case at Bar it had appeared That the Donees at the time of the Gift were Husband and Wife upon such a matter disclosed the Writ should abate but that doth not appear plainly to the Court. LXXXV Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was holden by the Court 1 Cro. 567. 3 Cro. 224. Post 189. That if a Writ of Dower be brought against an Infant who loseth by default at the Grand Cape that he may reverse the same by a Writ of Error but where an Infant appeareth by Guardian and afterwards loseth by default there he shall never avoid it for if any default be in the Guardian the Infant shall recover against him in a Writ of Deceit And afterwards the Iudgment in the first case was reversed LXXXVI Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer-Chamber NOTE In the Exchequer-Chamber before the Lord Chancellour The two chief Iustices and the chief Baron a Writ of Error was cast upon a Iudgment given in the Court of Exchequer and it was agreed Quod propter absentiam Dom. Thesaurarii Angliae They ought not nor could receive the said Writ and the Statute of 31 Eliz. doth not help the matter for that extends but to discontinuances which before the Statute many times hapned for the not coming of the Chancellour or Treasurer and not to give Conusance in a Writ of Error in the absence of the Treasurer c. LXXXVII Lacy and Fisher 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin by Lacy against Fisher The Defendant pleaded that the place where c. is called Spicold and holden of the Manor of Easthall by certain Rent and made Conusance as Bailiff of the Lord of the said Manor and issue being joined hereupon It was tried by the Iury of the Visne of Spicold and it was moved in arrest of Iudgment that the issue was mis-tried For the Visne ought to have been of Spicold and Easthall also Web and Richmond's Case And a Case was cited to have been adjudged accordingly betwixt Webb and Richmond M. 31 Eliz. in the same Court. LXXXVIII Corbet 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas THE Case was That an Action of Debt was brought by original Writ against an Administrator in another County than where the Administrator was dwelling and before notice of that suit he paid divers other debts of the Intestate due by specialties so as he had not Assets to pay the debt in demand having Assets at the day of the Teste of the original and now the Defendant appearing pleads the same special matter and concluded And so nothing remained in his hands And it was holden per Curiam to be a good Plea See 2 H. 4. 21 22. LXXXIX Sir William Pelham 's Case Pasch 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer 1 Co. 41. THE Case short put was this A. Tenant for life of a Messuage c. the remainder in tail to B. with divers remainders over A. by Deed indented and enrolled bargained and sold the Messuage c. so conveyed to Sir William Pelham in Fee who afterwards suffered a common Recovery thereof in which A. is vouched and so a common Recovery is had and executed and

was both against the common Law and also against all Conscience These matters coming to the knowledge of the Iustices and the mischiefs thereupon following being very frequent and it appearing that the Tenant in tail was a dangerous fellow and that there was no safe dealing with him they took consideration of them and considering also with themselves That Lineal Warranty and Assets and Collateral Warranty without Assets did bar the Entail upon this consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries So as by that means Tenant in tail hath Potestatem alienandi as he hath at the Common Law and by this means right was done to the Common Law because its authority was restored and thereby injury was done to no man But as for Tenant for life he never had Potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the recovery shall stand in force untill after the death of Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is alive Truly if the Law should be such great mischiefs would follow For then great Iointresses the Widows of great persons having assurances to them of great and stately Houses and of Lands furnished with Timber of great yearly value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit waste and the same should be dispunishable which would be an intolerable mischief and so he concluded that the suffering of a Recovery was a forfeiture and Iudgment Trin. 21 Eliz. was given and entred accordingly XC Noon 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer DEBT was brought in London against one as Executor and upon fully administred pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who assigned the same to the Queen whereupon a Scire facias issued out of the Exchequer against the Defendant into the County of Dorset The Serhiff retorned Nulla bona c. which Scire facias was upon a Constat of goods in another County It was agreed by all the Barons that the Debt was well assigned to the Queen And also that the Scire facias might issue forth of another Court than where the Record of the Iudgment remained and that upon a Constat of goods in another County than where the Writ is brought or where the party is dwelling he may well have a Scire facias in another County But the Retorn was challenged because contrary to the verdict As in a Replevin No such beast is not a good Retorn but Averia elongata or Nullus venit ex parte querentis ad monstrand averia And here the Sheriff might have retorned Devastavit which well stands with the Verdict 5 H. 7. 27. But as to that it was said by the Barons That it is true that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ was brought is concluded by the Verdict to make any retorn contrary to it but the Sheriff of another County shall not so be but the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought ought to retorn Devastavit c. and thereupon the Plaintiff shall have Process into another County But the Question farther was If a Scire facias upon Testatum shall issue into another County before that the Sheriff of the County where the Writ is brought had retorned a Devastavit for some conceived That a Devastavit where the Writ was brought ought first to be retorned and then upon a Testatum Process should issue forth into any County within England But others were of opinion That without a Devastavit retorned upon a Testatum Process might be sued forth immediately into any other County Williams said If I recover goods by Action brought in Midd. I may upon a Testatum have a Capias into any foreign County XCI Western and Weild 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN a Writ of Accompt brought in London the Defendant pleaded Never his Receiver c. which was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgement given that the Defendant should accompt Afterwards the Defendant brought his Writ of Privilege and if the same should be allowed after Iudgment was the Question Coke It shall be allowed for the Defendant hath not surceased his time This Iudgement to accompt is not properly a Iudgment for no Writ of Error lieth upon it before the accompt be ended Manwood Regularly after Iudgment no privilege shall be allowed but that is to be intended of a Iudgment ended but here notwithstanding this Iudgment the Action is depending and therefore he conceived that the privilege should be allowed in this case It was objected That then the Plaintiff should be at great mischief for he should lose the advantage of his Trial for he must begin again and plead again and have a new Trial. Clark the Plaintiff shall have benefit of his former Trial by way of Evidence XCII Brian and Cawsen 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas Rot. 1353. 3 Len. 115. IN an Action of Trespass by Brian and his Wife and others against Cawsen That William Gardiner was seised in Fee according to the custome of the Manor of C. of certain Lands and surrendred them to the use of his last Will by which he devised them in this manner i. I bequeath to John Th. my House and Land in M. called Larks and Sone To Steph. Th. my House and Land called Stokes and Newmans and to Roger Th. my House and Lands called Lakins and Brox. Moreover If the said John Stephen or Roger live till they be of lawfull age and have issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then I give the said Lands and Houses to them and their Heirs in manner aforesaid to give and sell at their pleasure but if it fortune one of them to die without issue of his body lawfully begotten Then I will that the other brothers or brother have all the said Houses and Lands in manner aforesaid and if it fortune the three to die without issue in like manner Then I will that all the said Houses and Lands be sold by my Executor or his Assigns and the money to be given to the poor The Devisor dieth John Stephen and Roger are admitted according to the intent of the Will Roger dieth within age without issue John and Stephen are admitted to his part John comes of full age and hath issue J. and surrenders all his part of the whole and his Estate therein to the use of Stephen and his heirs who is admitted accordingly Stephen comes of full age John the father dieth Stephen dieth without issue John the son as cosin and heir of Stephen is admitted according to the Will and afterwards dieth without issue The Wives of the Plaintiffs are heirs to him and are admitted to the said Lands called Larks and Sone and to the moyety of the Lands called Lakins and Brox parcell of Lands where c. by force whereof they enter into all the Lands where the Trespass is done and it was found That A. sole Executor died intestate and that Cawsen

not in the King without Office in the life of the party attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford Prerogat 54 55. acc He said That this interest which came unto the King by this Attainder is but a Chattel and then it is remitted by the Pardon and so he conceived if it be a Freehold For the words of the general Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and release all manner of Treasons c. and all other things Causes c. and here Forfeitures are pardoned and this word things is a transcendent c. and although it be a general word yet by the direction of the Act of general Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been specially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the Pardon extends to Inheritance for otherwise there is no use of that And he conceived That by the first branch of this Act that the same extends to Inheritances and to acquit the Lands of all incumbrances for every Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs and the third branch concerns onely Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the first is by words of acquittal See 33 H. 8. br Charter of Pardon 71. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found by Pardon of Parliament all Intrusions are pardoned in that case the Offence is pardoned but not the issues and profits of the Lands but by a Pardon before all is pardoned But here in our case the Office is not void for the Statute makes all Precepts Commissions c. void being awarded upon such forfeiture See also in the second branch Vexed or inquieted in Body Goods or Lands and see also among the Exceptions That persons standing indicted of wilfull Murther and Forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any offence by such person By which he said that if such Exception had not been the Land of such person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited as to the Traverse he said That because the Office is true our Plea is in the nature of Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of the persons and in the day of Feoffment and every circumstance in case of the King is to be traversed and our Plea in substance confesseth and avoideth the Offence Although that here the King be intituled by double matter of Record scil the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records scil the Attainder is discharged by another Record scil the Pardon and then but one Record remains scil the Office and therefore our Traverse well lieth And he said that by the common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office that the Lessee of the King had committed Waste or had cessed for two years and that in such case the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Offence therefore there was a Traverse at the common Law where the King was entitled by single matter of Record So upon Office finding Alienation without Licence there was a Traverse by the common Law See Traverse in such case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse of Office 54. Petition is by the common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in case of Goods was at the common Law but for Lands by Office by 34 E. 3. 14. for before the remedy was by Petition See Co. 4. part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases scil when by the Office the Land is not in the King's hands nor the King by that is in possession but onely by the Office is entitled to an Action and cannot make a Seisure without Suit for there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such Action to which he is entitled the party may appear to the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the common Law. It was adjourned CLXX Scott and Scott 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 73. 3 Len. 225. 4 Len. 70. IN a Replevin betwixt Scott and Scott the Case was George Scott 2 H. 8. being Tenant in tail of certain lands suffered a common Recovery to the use of his last Will and 15 H. 8. made his Will by which he did declare That the Recoverors should make a good and favourable Lease to Hugh Scott his younger brother and 25 H. 8. they make a Lease of the same land to the said Hugh for 199 years according to the Will of the said George Scott rendring Rent 11 l. 6 s. 8 d. payable at the Feast of the Annunciation and S. Michael by equall portions and that to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and there was a Covenant that after the death of the Recoverors the said Rent should be paid to Cestuy que use his Heirs and Assigns any thing in the said Indenture notwithstanding Proviso That if the Lesse make his Heir male his Assignee of that term that then he shall pay the said Rent to the Recoverors their Heirs and Assigns and the Lessee shall not pay the Rent to the Heirs of Cestuy que use upon which a Distress is taken and thereupon a Replevin brought Drew argued for the Plaintiff When a Condition is created the Law saith That it shall be taken and construed favourably in the behalf of him who is to perform it As if one be bounden to appropriate such a Church to such a house before such a day at his own costs and the Obligor grants a Pension out of the said Parsonage and afterwards appropriates the said Church it was holden that the Condition was well performed 3 H. 7. 4. A Lease for years upon condition to scowre the Ditches if the Lessee scowreth them once it is well enough And as to this word Proviso It is to see If here it be a word conditional In some Cases this word Pro makes a Condition as 45 E. 3. 8. Grant of a Ward pro bono servitio if the Grantee departeth out of his service the Grant is void So if an Annuity be granted unto a Physician pro consilio impendendo the same is a Condition 41 E. 3. 6. For the Grantor hath not means to compell the Grantee to give his Council but in some Cases this word Pro doth not make a Condition As if before the Statute of West 3. Land was given pro homagio suo there if the Homage be not done the Feoffor could not re-enter but he ought to distrain And I conceive that in our Case Proviso doth not make a Condition 7 H. 6. 44. A Feoffment in Fee with Warranty Proviso that the Feoffee shall not vouch So a Grant of a Rent-charge Proviso that the Grant shall not

being void he presents he may repeal his presentment and he vouched divers presidents of Grants of the King of such lands to hold of him as of his Dutchy and sometimes of others And the King by his Dutchy seal may give lands in Mortmain and the King under his Dutchy-seal hath made divers Corporations within his Dutchy And although this Rent be a new thing never parcel of the Dutchy yet because it is issuing out of the Dutchy lands and reserved thereout shall be of the same nature and accounted parcel of the possessions of the Dutchy If before the Statute of West 3. one seised of lands on the part of his mother made a Feoffment in Fee Tenend by such services and died the Seignory should go to the heir on the part of his mother and should be descendable as the land it self in lieu of which it came And if Tenant in tail now after the Statute of 32 H. 8. makes a Lease for years according to the Statute rendring Rent to him and his heirs it shall be expounded such heirs which are inheritable to the land according to the entail Manwood chief Baron Demanded of Plowden this Question The King makes a Feoffment in Fee of lands of his Dutchy Is the same a matter of Record who answered yes Manwood Truely no for then there needed not any livery Egerton Solicitor argued to the contrary and he argued much upon the Statute of 1 H. 4. and 1 H. 7. of the separation of the Dutchy of Lancaster from the Crown which see in the Comment 215. in the Case of the Dutchy of Lancaster by which Acts the possessions of the Dutchy were devested out of the body Politick of the King and vested in his body natural and are as their corporal holding in the King as they were in the Duke of Lancaster being a Subject who if he had made a Feoffment the Feoffee should not hold of him but of the King Ergo so shall it be in the case where the King himself makes a Feoffment and he cited a Case put in the end of the Dutchy Case 4 Eliz. 223. The Queen made a Feoffment of lands of the Dutchy out of the County Palatine to hold of her in Capite the Feoffee shall hold of her in Capite as of her Crown of England The case went farther the King after this Feoffment granteth the Fee-farm the Question is If the Rent reserved upon this Feoffment shall pass by such grant or not and he said That this Rent is not parcel of the Fee-farm but rather a collateral charge upon the land for in all cases where there is a Tenure expressed in fait or implyed in Law there the rent reserved after shall not be parcel of the Tenure but a Rent in gross by it self As in our case Tenend in feod firm makes a Tenure therefore the Reddend after shall not make the sum reserved parcel of it 33 E. 3. Annuity 52. before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man makes a Feoffment in Fee Tenend de Dominis Capital rendring the rent of 20 l. that Rent is a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Tenure King E. 6. granted to Cranmer Archbishop and his heirs Tenend by the fifth part of a Knight's-fee Reddend 6 l. per ann Cranmer in Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of his son in tail the remainder to the use of the right heirs of Cranmer made a Fee who is attainted of Treason by which the remainder to his right heirs Escheats to the King and so the Seignory is extinct but it was adjudged That the Rent was in esse and not extinct by the Escheat of the remainder for it was not parcel of the Seignory So here in our case Another matter was moved If this Rent being a new thing created de novo and not parcels of the possessions of the Dutchy 1 H. 4. nor 1 H. 7. shall be accounted in Law in the right of the Crown or of the Dutchy and if of the Crown then it cannot pass by the Dutchy-seal and the Statute of 1 H. 4. speaks of such Lands and Tenements which were to his Ancestors Dukes of Lancaster but this Rent never was in them c. and the Queen cannot enlarge the possessions of her Dutchy by her own Act and therefore if J. S. being Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat and saith that he holdeth for life the remainder to the King in Fee in the right of his Dutchy now this remainder is vested in the King in the right of his Crown and not in the right of his Dutchy for it is onely an Estoppel So the Villein of the King in the right of his Dutchy purchaseth lands the King seiseth he shall have the lands in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy If the King giveth Common out of his lands parcel of his Dutchy and afterwards makes a Feoffment in Fee of the lands out of which the Common is granted and afterwards the Commoner dieth without heir the King shall have the same in the right of his Crown and not in the right of the Dutchy So although the rent doth follow the nature of the lands out of which it is issuing yet it is not so to all intents and he said That by the Statute of 2 3 Phil. Ma. the King could not enlarge the possessions of the Dutchy and therefore by the said Act authority is given for to annex possession unto the Dutchy by Letters Patents And there is another clause in the said Statute That if any part of the possessions of the Dutchy have been aliened or granted unto any subject and are reverted to the Crown by Escheat attainder forfeiture purchase c. they shall be deemed and accepted parcel of the Dutchy which case proves That if the King makes a Feoffment of such lands the same is a Tenure in chief for if it were a Tenure of the Dutchy then upon Escheat it should be parcel of the Dutchy again without the help of that Statute Now this Rent being a Rent in gross and not parcel of the Seignory Reddendo Domino Regi haeredibus successoribus suis aut Domino aut Dominis feodi when the King grants the Seignory to the Lord Audley it hath been moved that it was in the Election of the Feoffee to pay the Rent to the King or to the Lord Audley but that is not so for although the Law be so betwixt Subjects yet in case of the King it is otherwise for the King shall never be over-reached by an Election and therefore he shall pay the Rent to the King. It was adjourned CLXXXV The Executors of Sir William Cordel and Clifton 's Case Hill. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Len. 59. THE Case was The Earl of Westmerland seised of a Manor whereof the Demeans were usually let for three lives by Copy

therefore by Devise the Fee-simple shall pass without the word Heirs And he said that the opinion of Wray chief Iustice was in the Case of the Dean of Pauls If I devise that my Executors shall assign my Lands to J. S. the same implicative is a Devise of the Lands themselves to my Executors for otherwise they could not assign So if I will and devise That A. shall pay yearly out of my Manour of D. to J. S. 10 l. the same is a good Devise of the Lands to A. So if in the Case at Bar this house had been devised to the Cordwaynors by the name of the Society of Cordwaynors such Devise had been good enough Cooper contrary and he said That the intent of the Devisor ought to agree with the Law otherwise the Iudges are not to regard it in point of Iudgment and he put the Case of 39 H. 6. 10. 1 Rolls 616. A. deviseth his Lands and afterwards is disseised and before any entry dieth now notwithstanding the intent of the Devisor the Devise is void and he said The defect of a Will in words in making of an Estate shall be supplied by intent but the defect in words in naming of the Devisor or Devisee shall never be supplied See 49 E. 3. 3. 4. the Case of Whitavers And he cited a Case 25 H. 8. A stranger of the Low-countries being made a Denizen in England returned into his Countrey and dwelling there became sick and in making of his Will he was advised by Council that by Devise of all his goods his lands deviseable would pass and therefore by such words he declared his Will with the intention aforesaid scil to pass his Lands and died and afterwards the States of the Low-countries wrote unto King Henry the 8. acquainting him with the intention of the Devisor and also of the opinion of their Laws there upon the said Will and all in favour of the Devisee whereupon the King referred the consideration of the matter to Norwick then Lord chief Iustice who declared his opinion to the King to be That by that Devise the Lands did not pass notwithstanding the intent of the Devisor CXCIX Crabdell 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench CRabdell was bound by Recognizance to his good behaviour upon which the Queen brought a Scire facias and surmised that after the Recognizance acknowledged the said Crabdell was arrested and taken by the Constable for suspicion of Felony and of his own wrong escaped It was objected on the part of Crabdell because it is not alledged by matter in fact that a Felony was committed But the whole Court was of a contrary opinion For it is not material if the Felony were committed or not for if a Subject be arrested by a lawfull Officer it is not lawfull for him to escape but he ought to stand to the Law and to answer unto the matter with which he is charged And so Crabdell was forced to answer CC. Basset and Prowe 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN Debt upon a Bond the Case was That Basset was bound with Prowe as his surety to one Preston in a Bond of 500 l. and that was upon a corrupt and usurious contract against the Statute and Prowe was bound unto the Plaintiff in a Bond as a counter-bond to save the Plaintiff harmless from the said Bond of 500 l. Basset is sued by Preston upon the said Bond and so damnified and thereupon sued Prowe upon the counter-bond 1 Cro. 588 642 643. 3 Len. 63. Goldsb 174. who pleaded against Basset the Statute of Vsury pretending that all assurances depending upon such usurious contract as void by the Statute but by the opinion of Wray chief Iustice the same is no Plea for the Statute is That all Bonds collateral assurances made for the payment of Money lent upon usury shall be utterly void But the Bond here upon which the Action is brought was not for the payment of the Money lent but for the indempnity of the surety CCI. The Vicountess Bindon 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the Exchequer More 213. 1 Cro. 250 251 252. THE Executors of Thomas late Viscount Bindon brought Detinue in the Exchequer against the Widow of the said Viscount and declared upon the detainer of certain Iewels The Defendant did justifie the detainer of them as her Parophornalia And it was said by Manwood chief Baron That Parophorn ought to be allowed unto a Widow having regard unto her degree and here the Husband of the Defendant being a Viscount 500 Marks is a good allowance for such matter CCII. Offley and Johnson 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench More 136. OFfley and Johnson were bound as sureties with one A. to B. who recovered against Johnson in London and had Execution against him and now Johnson sued Offley to have of him contribution to the said Execution ut uterque eorum oneretur pro rata according to the custome of London Offley removed the cause by privilege into the King's-Bench whereupon came Johnson and prayed a Procedendo and because upon this matter no Action lieth by the course of the Common Law but onely by custome in such cities The cause was remanded Hob. 264. More 135. 3 Len. 148. for otherwise the Plaintiff should be without remedy See the Book of Entries 160. CCIII Litchfield and Cage 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Ejectione firmae the parties were at issue 3 Len. 100. and by the order of the Court the Trial was stayed and yet the Plaintiff against the Order did privily obtain a Nisi prius of which Gawdy Iustice being informed of it after the Term awarded a Supersedeas unto the Iustices of Assise before whom c. and yet notwithstanding that the Enquest at the instance of the Plaintiff was taken and found for the Plaintiff and all this matter was shewed to the Court in the King's-Bench and there examined and proved and it was ordered by the Court that the Verdict should not be entred of Record nor any Iudgment upon it And so it was put in ure in a Case between Vernon and Fowler And then the Plaintiffs Council took exception to the Supersedeas because it was not subscribed with the hand of Gawdy but non allocatur for the Seal is sufficient CCIV. Scott 's Case Pasch 26 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. WIlliam Scott was indicted upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusants by the name of William Scott of Southwark Gent. and upon that Indictment Iudgment given for the Queen upon which Scott brought a Writ of Error and assigned for Error That in the Indictment Scott is not named of any Parish but generally of Southwark for within Southward there are divers Parishes and by the said Statute it is ordained that the penalties accruing by the said Statute ought to be divided in three parts whereof one part is to be applied to the

Statute is recited which needs not and therefore being misrecited made the Indictment insufficient but here the Statute is well recited and therefore as unto that matter the Indictment is sufficient As to the second exception the Iustices were of opinion That the Indictment in that respect Antea 184. was too general and incertain The third exception was not allowed for the latter words i. e. in Putney do refer to the whole and extend as well unto the house as unto the lands But as to these words Lands to the said house belonging See the Case between Partridge and Croker 7 E. 6. 85. where it is good enough because that the number of the acres is set incertain And it was holden by the Court That a Schoolmaster is a good addition for it is a mystery as a Scrivener and afterward the Indictment for the house onely was holden good CCXXXIII Gray a Bencher of the Temple 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Chancery GRay a Bencher of the Temple's Case was this It was found by Office That one H. was seised in Fee of certain lands called Drayners and Codred alias Codreth in the County of Hertford in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and Anne Capel with whom he afterwards intermarried and of the heirs of their two bodies begotten and of such Estate died seised and farther it was found that the said H. was also seised of other Lands in Barmesden in his Demesne as of Fee and therefore died seised and now came Gray into the Chancery and shewed that the said H. was seised of the said Land called Drayners in his Demesne as of Fee and thereof enfeoffed certain persons unto the use of himself and the said Anne Capel for the term of their lives and afterwards by his Indenture dated the 23. of Decemb. and enrolled bargained and sold the Reversion thereof to the said Gray c. by force whereof c. Absque hoc that he was seised in tail and absque hoc that he thereof died seised in his Demesne as of Fee-tail as it is found by the said Office and for the Land in Barmesden he said that the Lady Judde was seised thereof for the term of her life the Reversion to the said H. in Fee who granted to him the said Reversion in Fee c. absque hoc that he died seised in his Demesne as of Fee c. And upon that the Queen's Attorney joined issue and the Venire facias issued De Cottred Barmesden and the Iury found That H. did not make the Feoffment to the use of himself and Anne his Wife in tail and farther found for Gray in all c. And it was objected here That the same is not a good and lawfull trial For the Land is alledged to be in Codrett and the Venire facias is of Codred c. And although the Venire facias be well awarded as unto Barmesden yet being naught in part it is naught in all which was granted by the whole Court And then a new Venire facias shall issue forth for the whole Another Objection was because he pleads that the Lady Judde was seised of that Land for the term of her life in which Case Gray who is in Reversion ought not to be admitted to this Traverse because that Tenant for life for any thing that is pleaded to the contrary is yet alive and it is clear that none shall be put to his Traverse but the party grieved and here he in the Reversion upon an Estate for life cannot be restored to the possession and by consequence shall not have Traverse See for that 6 H. 7. 15. and 37. Ass 11. c. 2. The seisin in tail ought to be traversed and not the descent or dying seised for if they were seised and disseised and so died the Queen shall have the Ward Coke contrary For Codred and Cottered idem sonant c. And although that it be found by Office that H. was seised of Lands in Codred alias Codreth yet the Defendant supplies the said matter for he saith thus as unto the Land in Codred praedicta which words import that the said Land was known by the one name or the other for this word praedicta is as an Averment which see 33 H. 8. Br. Averm 42. And so here this word praedicta is an Averment that Cottered and Codred are one And if so then the Venire facias is well awarded The Statute of 18 H. 6. gives Traverse to those who find themselves grieved by such Offices or which are put out of their Lands or Tenements and we are within the words of it for upon the whole matter we are out of possession as it was ruled in the Case of one Stukely in the Court of Wards the last Term. If it be found by Office That A. died seised of my Manor and that he held the said Manor of the Queen Now I am out of possession and for that cause the bargain and sale of Dorrel to Sir Francis Walsingham was holden void by the whole Court And 4 H. 6. 12. Traverse is given in lieu of Petition but he in the reversion may have Petition therefore he shall be also admitted to Traverse and this Case may be resembled to the Case of 2 E. 3. 23. where a Praecipe was brought against Tenant for life and he in the Reversion for life prayed to be received It was said by Thorp That is not within the Case of the Statute for he is Tenant onely in the Remainder and it is possible that neither shall have any thing and the Statute speaks onely of Reversion and yet it was awarded That he should be received otherwise great prejudice would follow And here we are at prejudice for now by reason of this Office we cannot have our Action of Waste Also here we need not to Traverse the dying seised in tail but it is sufficient to Traverse the gift in tail for if there be not a gift in tail it is not possible that he should die seised in tail which see 2 E. 4. 15. by Laicon Gawdy Iustice conceived that the trial is not good for the Venire facias is not from the place where the Land is and this word praedicta doth not amount to an Averment and the Case cited before is but the opinion of Brook. Wray said That as to the first exception that it was good enough for both the names idem sonant and as to the Office by that the Queen hath gained possession so as he who traverseth cannot have an Action of Waste and so he is prejudiced by the Office c. CCXXXIV Perchall 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench PErchall was Indicted upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. cap. 4. for drawing of his Dagger in the Church against J. S. without saying That he drawed it to the intent to stick the Plaintiff and therefore the Indictment was holden void as to the

also of Statutes We cannot deny but that we have Lands of the Conusor and of the Gift of the Conusor our Ancestor whose Heir we are who was indebted to the Queen and yet we are not within this Statute Was or shall be indebted shall not be intended after the Gift made for if he first convey his Land and afterwards becomes indebted the same is not within the Statute and where a mischief is to be remedied by a Statute the remedy in exposition of the Statute is to be applied according as the mischief doth require Shall be is to be intended of future Debts after the Statute and in our case the Father was not Receivor or other Officer to the Queen And if this Statute should be so construed the Father might take 10000 l. for the Marriage of his son and assurance of Lands unto him and then if he will acknowledge a Debt to the Queen he should defeat the whole which should be a very great mischief The words are By Gift after the Debt acknowledged to the Queen And he cited the Case 19 Eliz. Plow 191. betwixt Ludford and Gretton upon the Statute of 18 H. 6. the words of which are That whatsoever Warrant hereafter to the Chancellor of England addressed the day of the delivery of the same it be entred of Record in the Chancery and that the Chancellour make Letters Patents upon the same Warrants bearing date the day of the said delivery in the Chancery and not before and all Letters Patents made to the contrary shall be void And the Case was That a Warrant was directed to the Chancellour for the making of Letters Patents and delivered to him before the making of them but the day of the delivery was not entred of Record c. And it was holden that notwithstanding that the Letters Patents were good for the mischief at the Common Law intended to be reformed by that Act was not the post-dating of the Letters Patents but the ante-dating and therefore that ought to be principally taken into consideration which mischief being understood the words of the said Statute are to be applied to it ipsae etenim Leges cupiunt ut jure regantur i. with an Equity according to the Mischief and not always according to the precise words and in that case it is sufficient if the Letters Patents bear date after and not before the delivery of the Warrant and that was the matter intended to be reformed Also as our Case here is we are not within this Statute for the words are Of the Gift of his Ancestour but here the Son hath not the Lands of the Gift of his Ancestour but rather by the Statute of Vses and so he is in the Post and not in the Per by his Ancestour for here the Fine was levied to divers persons unto the Vses aforesaid and here the Gift was not a mere gratuity to his Son but in consideration that he should marry the Daughter of Sir Edw. Huddleston and also the Father was the King's Debtor after the Gift and not before Popham Attorney-General to the contrary The letter of the Statute is with us for he comes in of the Gift of his Ancestour who was indebted to the Queen and although that the Gift was by way of use yet the precedents in the Common-Pleas and other Courts are That he may declare of the Feoffment of such a one although it was by way of use and he said If A. be bound to enfeoff B. of such Lands if he maketh a Feoffment to the use of B. and his Heirs he hath well enough performed the Condition and if the Case should not be within the Statute then should that branch of the Statute be idle and to no purpose For if the Ancestour be seised and becometh indebted to the Queen and after makes a conveyance ut supra the same is provided for by the first branch of the Statute For the Land is liable to the Recognizance or Obligation made to the King and that they shall be as effectual as a Statute Staple and reason requires that the son who comes in by mere gratuity of his Ancestour should be charged And it was a common practice before the making of that Statute That the King's Officers would convey their Lands to their children and then become the King's Debtors for the remedy of which mischief the Statute was made and the Statute of 27 Eliz. doth not respect the Heir because he is Heir but as a purchasor onely and that upon good consideration Coke If any fraud can be found in our Case then without doubt we should be within the Statute but being upon good consideration it is out of the Statute nor was there any purpose in the father when he made the said Conveyance to become the King's Debtor or Officer to him for if there were then he is within the Statute also the Gift had been a mere gratuity c. And afterwards at another day the Case was moved by Coke and he said That here is not any Gift because it was in consideration of Marriage and then no gift for it is an old Proverb What is freer than gift Egerton The father giveth to his son and heir the same is within the Statute and yet here is consideration scil of blood Coke contrary Where the father giveth to his younger son or to his daughter which is not his heir and of that opinion was Manwood chief Baron And afterwards as Coke reported the son and his Lands were discharged CXV Amner and Luddington 's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error 3 Len. 89. 8 Co. 96. ERror was brought in the King's-Bench by Amner against Luddington Mich. 25 and 26 Eliz. Rot. 495. The Case was That one Weldon was seised and leased unto Pierpoint for ninety nine years who devised the same by his Will in this manner I bequeath to my Wife the Lease of my House during her life and after her death I will that it go amongst my Children unpreferred Pierpoint died his Wife entred and was possessed virtute legationis praedict and took Husband one Fulshurst against whom one Beswick recovered in an Action of Debt 140 l. upon which Recovery issued forth a Fieri facias and upon that a Venditioni Exponas upon which the Sheriff sold the said term so devised to one Reynolds Fulshurst died his Executor brought Error to reverse the Iudgment given against the Testator at the Suit of Beswick the Wife did re-enter and sold the Land and died Alice an unpreferred Daughter of Pierpoint did enter and upon that matter found by special Verdict in the Common-Pleas the entry of Alice was adjudged lawfull upon which Iudgment Error was brought in the King's-Bench And it was argued upon the words of the Devise because here the House is not devised but the Lease it self scil all his interest in the thing devised And it is not like unto the Case betwixt Welchden and Elkington 20 Eliz. Plow 519.

Covenant wherein the breach was assigned was That if R. W. Brother of the Plaintiff should say Make assurance of such a Manor to the Defendant as the Council learned of the said Defendant should advise Then if the Defendant pays unto the Plaintiff 50 l. the Obligation to be void The Defendant by advice of Council demanded a Release with Warranty c. And by Periam and Windham The same is not any Assurance but a means to recover in value Anderson contrary That it was a Collateral Warranty c. CLXXIII Cropp and Hambleden 's Case Hill. 28 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 48. IN Trespass by Cropp against Erasmus Hambleden upon the special Verdict the Case was That one Martin Hastings was seised of the lands where c. in the right of his wife for the life of the wife and that they both did Lease unto the Defendant for years rendring Rent payable at the Feast of S. Michael and the Feast of the Annunciation c. with clause of re-entry if the Rent be behind by a Month after any of the said Feasts and after the feast of S. Michael 26 Eliz. and before the Month expired the Lessee the now Defendant sent his servant unto the house of the Lessor for to pay to him the Rent then due the servant went unto the house of the Lessor and there asked for him to whom it was answered by one Mary Briggs daughter of the wife of the Lessor who there dwelt in the said house with her mother that the Lessor was not at home for which the said servant delivered the said Rent to the said Mary requiring her to deliver the same over to the Lessor upon his retorn to the house in the name of his servant Mary reserved the said Rent and upon the retorn of the Lessor at his house told him all the matter aforesaid and that the servant of the Lessor the Defendant had required her to tender the said Rent to the Lessor in the name of the Defendant and thereupon offered and tendered to him the said Rent and the Lessor refused it And the Iury found That the third half year before the tender mentioned before the Lessor commanded the said Mary to receive the Rent then due who did accordingly and that the next half year then following the said Mary did receive the said Rent without commandment of the Lessor but after the Lessor agreed unto it and that the immediate half year before this tender in question the Defendant paid the Rent then due to the Lessor himself who received it And it was the opinion of Wray chief Iustice that this tender was good and it is not like unto the case of an Obligation for there the Obligee cannot have an Action of Debt before the last day but here the Lessor might have distrained or have had an Action of Debt before the Month expired and so the Lessor is bound by this tender and by Gawdy Iustice This tender cannot be said a tender by a stranger for here Mary came in privity of the servant of the Lessee and as it is found by Verdict Mary tendered it to the Lessor as being requested by the servant of the Lessee And afterwards upon consideration had betwixt the Iustices themselves the Iustices viz. Clench Gawdy and Wray for Shute was then sick it was clearly resolved against the Plaintiff and that the said tender as it is found in the Verdict is a good and sufficient tender and the Lord Wray delivered the reason as before and farther said That if the said Rent had been reserved payable at the feasts aforesaid or within a Month after each of them there the tender as above had not been good nor should bind the Lessor for in such case the Lessor could not distrain or have an Action of Debt for the said Rent before the Month expired And this is a case of extremity and deserves no favour and here is no mischief to the Lessor for he might have had his Rent in due time if he would and his captious refusal shall not avail him And Iudgment was given accordingly CLXXIV Bostock and Covert 's Case Trin. 33 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas BOstock and his Wife brought a Writ of Dower against Covert son and heir of her former Husband who pleaded That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of Lands amounting to the number of 300 Acres and held the same by Knights-service and died seised after whose death by virtue of the Statute of 34 and 32 H. 8. he entred into 100 Acres of the said Lands as the third part of the said Lands descended and held the same in severalty being the third part of the clear yearly value of the whole discharged of a Dower and that the Wife ought to have all her Dower out of the two parts devised And Anderson said That the Plea was not good for the heir who will take advantage of the Statute in that point ought to enter generally as Tenant in common with the Devisee and then in a Writ of Dower it is a good Plea so if after his entry as Tenant in common Partition be made betwixt him and the Devisee such a Plea is good but here he hath entred severally into a third part distinct from the residue and so hath ousted the Devisee of a third part severally for which cause he cannot have advantage of this Plea To which the rest of the Iustices Non contradixerunt CLXXV Sir John Southwel 's Case Pasch 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer 3 Len. 147. SIR John Southwel of the County of Lancaster 7 Julii 19 Eliz. made a Conveyance of his Lands to divers Feoffees and their Heirs upon condition that they should find him and his Wife and so many persons in his house c. prefer his Daughters in marriage pay his debts c. And if there fell out at the years end upon accompt made by the Feoffees any surplusage that then at the end of every such year they should answer such surplusage as should then remain in their hands unexpended of the Rents and profits of his said Lands with clause of revocation c. Afterwards the said Conveyance being in force came the Statute of 23 Eliz. concerning Recusants upon which Statute the said Southwel is now endicted and afterwards upon a Commission issuing out of the Exchequer to the Sheriff of Lancaster to enquire of the Lands of the said Southwel although against the said Conveyance it was given in Evidence That after the said Conveyance the said Sir John Southwel had granted Trees from off the said Lands and had received Fines and Incomes for Leases c. yet the Iurors charged to enquire would not find that the said Sir John Southwel had any Lands c. And by special command from the Queen it was referred out of the Exchequer to all the Iudges of England If the Lands of the said Sir John Southwel conveyed as aforesaid were subject to the said

Statute and the penalties thereof And upon a great deliberation it was by them all resolved and agreed That notwithstanding the said Conveyance the said Lands were liable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors who against the Evidence given to them for the Queen gave their Verdict ut supra Process was awarded against them out of the Court of Exchequer for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons And for their said contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 50 l. CLXXVI Moore and Savil 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Ejectione firmae by Moore against Savil the Case was That Tenant in tail leased the Land to the father mother and son for their lives by Indenture in which it was comprehended That forasmuch as the Lessor is but Tenant in tail and so cannot by Law limit these Estates by way of Remainder but jointly in possession and his intent was That because this Lease was procured and obtained at the special suit and costs and charges of the father That the said son should suffer his father and after him his mother to take the profits of the said Lands demised and to occupy and hold the said Lands to their onely profit without interruption of the said son notwithstanding his joint Estate in possession with them Provisum igitur est That if the said son shall challenge claim demand or take any profits of the Lands so demised or enter into the same during the life of his said father or mother That then the Estate to him limited by the said Indenture should cease and be utterly void And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That this Condition and Proviso was utterly void for it is contrary to the Estate limited before as in the Case cited by Coke at the Bar. If I lease to you my Lands for 20 years Proviso that you shall not occupy the same the two first years the same Proviso is void and contrary and repugnant to the Estate CLXXVII Lord Cromwel and Townsend 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber HEnry Lord Cromwel exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber against Roger Townsend Esquire for that the said Roger Townsend in an Action betwixt James Taverner Plaintiff and James Cromwel Farmor of the said Lord Cromwel Defendant in Trespass in the favour and unlawfull maintenance of the said Taverner did procure a partial Iury to be retorned And upon the hearing of the Cause the matter given in Evidence was That the said Taverner was a Copiholder of the said Lord Cromwel and that the said Lord Cromwel pretending that the said Taverner had forfeited his Copihold caused the said James Cromwel to make an Entry in the right of the said Lord upon the said Taverner upon which Entry Taverner brought an Action of Trespass against the said James Cromwel in which Action the parties were at Issue upon the forfeiture And before any Venire facias issued forth Taverner hearing that one Steward who was Bailiff of the Franchize under the Earl of Arundel and who ought to make the Pannel c. was purposed to have made the said Pannel not duly viz. to retorn therein great Gentlemen of the County who were Lords of Manors in favour of the said Lord Cromwel went unto the said Roger Townsend who was then one of the principal servants and agents of the said Earl and shewed to him that if those great persons and Lords of Manors be retorned for the trial of that Issue peradventure they would not so easily appear for the expedition of the parties as people of lesser condition and also many of them being Lords of Manors and having customary Tenants and therefore not indifferent to try that Issue and prayed his Order to the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel where upon a conference with the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel and shewing to him the making of the said Pannel was not convenient or any equal course to retorn Knights Esquires or Lords of Manors but rather such sufficient persons for the greater expedition of Iustice and indifferency of the trial And afterwards the said Taverner exhibited a Petition shewing all the special matter and praying him to give Order for the making of an indifferent Pannel for the trial of that Cause which Petition was delivered to the said Earl by the said Townsend in the name of the said Taverner Vpon which the Earl did refer the said matter to three of his chiefest agents and Counsellours i. Dicksey Townsend and Carrel and delivered to them the Book of Freeholders within the said Franchise who according to their Commission made a Pannel which was retorned and the Iury passed with the said James Cromwel in the right of the said Lord And if this intermedling of Townsend with this matter as abovesaid c. especially his conference with the Bailiff be maintenance or not was the Question And by the Lord Anderson and the Lord Wray chief Iustices It was delivered for Law That because the said Townsend was in manner a servant of the said Earl who had retorn of Writs and one of his principal Counsellours and agents and hearing Ex insinuatione of the said Taverner the misdemeanour of the Bailiff of his Lord could not do better than to shew to the Bailiff his duty for it concerned the honour of his Lord and also his Inheritance in the Franchise But if the said Townsend had been a mere stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them it had been clearly maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in this Court in the Case of one Gifford Gifford's Case where the parties being at Issue and a Venire facias was to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to doe in the Cause according to his Conscience and that was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon the full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the sentence of the said Court was acquitted of every Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Council there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CLXXVIII Sir Moil Finch 's Case 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll 184. 1 Cro. 220. Poph. 25. 1 Roll 215. THE Case was this The King and Queen Philip and Mary leased for seventy years for certain Rent payable at the Feasts of Saint Michael and the Annunciation Proviso that if the Rent be behind and not paid by the space of forty days after any of the Feasts aforesaid that the Lease shall cease and be void At Mich. 9 Eliz. the Rent was not paid according to the Proviso but a Month after the said forty days it was paid and Acquittance given for it and so the Rents due after unto 30 Eliz. were duly paid and Acquittances given for the same

Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Text snippets containing the quad